← Back to search

Anomalously high quasiparticle thermal conductivity in the underdoped cuprate superconductor HgBa$_{2}$CuO$_{4+δ}$

Jordan Baglo, Quentin Barthélemy, Étienne Lefrançois, Anne Forget, Dorothée Colson, Cyril Proust, Louis Taillefer

arXiv:2607.06332 · 2026-07-07

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

The single-layer cuprate superconductor HgBa$_{2}$CuO$_{4+δ}$ (Hg1201) is an ideal candidate for investigating many properties of cuprates with minimal disorder and without the complication of multiple CuO$_2$ layers. Here we measure the in-plane longitudinal thermal conductivity $κ$ of underdoped Hg1201 ($T_c$ = 76 K, $p$ = 0.11) at dilution refrigerator temperatures to extract the nodal quasiparticle velocity ratio $v_F/v_Δ$. Assuming contributions from only a single line node per quadrant on the Fermi surface leads to a value of $v_F/v_Δ$ = $23 \pm 3$, anomalously large compared to other cuprates at similar dopings. In conjunction with the anomalously high quasiparticle specific heat of Hg1201 in the normal state reported previously at a similar doping, this points to more than one Fermi surface sheet crossing the nodal line, suggesting the presence of more than the single small electron pocket detected by quantum oscillations.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
HgBa2CuO4+δ

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

76Pressure not reportedunknown
HgBa2CuO4+δ

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

97Pressure not reportedunknown
HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

—Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers